This started as a reply in another thread, then I thought it might be veering off topic there and would work better in its own. This is pretty much it. Every DLC has a deadline and a budget, and the publisher has to work out the best result they can get within those limits. The priorities chosen can fairly be debated--biting off more than can be chewed is a problem DTG and third parties have faced before, and can be seen in the final product when it happens. Goblin may be showing another side of this tradeoff, being a small route that allowed more time and money to be spent on the scenery and such. So what's the best approach to take? Personally, I think stick to variety. I'm fine with big routes that have lots to do, even if the visuals are sparse as a result. But a short, lush route is nice to have also. Moods change, so having something that fits whatever mood you're in is ideal. Like high-speed European passenger vs. monstrous U.S. freight for another example. Most important, I think is that it works. Being mostly a player of large open-world games, I'm used to ignoring things like pop-in and plants that are flat when looked at up close. But everything doable needs to work, be it RPG quests or train runs. And since post-release support will always be needed later, being the nature of the beast, that needs to be accounted for in advance rather than hoped for or just discarded for business reasons later. I think I had a conclusion in mind when I started this, but posting before coffee carries risk. Maybe it can start an interesting and constructive discussion, I hope?
Deadlines are inevitable that part is undisputed, so they need to do what they can get in, rather than have majorly underdeveloped parts of the route, if they want to do more they need a further deadline what suits that, if they can’t get that then they can’t do that, whereas currently they ain’t getting that longer deadline and still doing it.
It all starts with the planning stage. I mean we got ECML which is what, 80 miles, but reasonably detailed with two complex locations Doncaster and Peterborough. At some point whoever is running the show whether DTG or a third party like Rivet should understand the capability and capacity of their route builders and asset makers. Just because Johnny throws his enthusiasm in the ring and says he'll knock out Fife Circle in four months doesn't mean he can do it to the required standard. And actually that last word is key. DTG should be laying down minimum standards as to what is acceptable in a full price DLC. So we don't get another debacle like Fife Circle in the future. Not saying every route has to be as detailed as BPO or Goblin, depends on the prototype anyway. I mean if Rivet decided to do Helmsdale to Georgemas that does pass through bleak territory where much of the terrain would be fairly basic. But if you are doing a lowland line then you need to put the time in to o fields and hedge lines with varying textures and crops. On a payware route low res buildings should be confined to very distant scenery. And a UK route should be properly fenced in. If the overseer feels his team can't meet that in the allocated time, don't give it the green light.
And having a fallback position. Many, many years ago when I enlisted with 3D Train Stuff as a route builder for MSTS, our first rather fanciful idea was to do Paddington to Bristol TM. Quickly realised would be biting off far more than we could chew, thus the Cambrian line was born. Initial plan was to go all the way from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth and Pwllheli but again realised that would get mired down so it was cut back to the Cambrian Coast from Machynlleth to Pwllheli plus Aberystwyth. Even that took nearly a year to build. It was only later on and after I had parted company to pursue freeware interests, they brought in another route builder and did Version 2 which did indeed add the route to Shrewsbury, Oswestry etc. But it serves to illustrate that you shouldn't bite off more than you can chew, particularly if your developers are doing it in spare time and not a full time job, which I suspect is the case with the likes of Rivet.
While we can almost be sure that deadlines do exist, Has there ever been a statement (written here in the Forum or said in a livestream) that either DTG or third party do have to comply to exact deadlines where they must have a finished product ready for release? Do we have a confirmation to that to base the discussion on? And who exactly is the one who is giving the word here? Focus Entertainment, distribution platforms (Steam, Epic Games, Sony, Microsoft) or even DTG setting their targets by themselves to not having unsatisfied costumers, who patiently wait for the release since it has been announced a while back ago?
Business projects have deadlines. Extending them is always technically possible, but a business also has lots of interlocking parts that make doing so a hassle. I'm sure that everyone you mention in your last paragraph is a factor because all are affected. Just having to work with the vendors, there being (IIRC) seven different builds of the game to release as simultaneously as possible, would be a substantial task.
From the old school and rigid PMBOK over to hybrid management solutions to Agile with its different approaches like Scrum or Kanban, it is no coincidence that all the project management playbooks emphasize a thoroughly elaborated risk assessment & mitigation plus change management as fundamental pillars for project approvals. This can't be different because complex software projects have a huge variety of (still unknown) dependencies between the eco-systems which, ultimately, must flow together. You can try to optimize educated guess work, but you can't foresee anything. In more than 30 years of any kind and size project management I can count on my fingers on how many times the estimated deadlines have been met. At least in the initial project lifecycles most ETAs are crystal ball results, just to fill in some shiny PPT slides from the hotshots above. There's no shame in postponing a deadline if the storyline behind has a plausible explanation. A capable high level management will count on these possibilities before they approve the project fundings. In the end of the day it's just a stupid video game, not more. And that's why I think(!) Rivet get away with their kind of mismanagement, over and over again. If you try to pull this PR stunt (ultimately a classic PR disaster) in the - let's say - automotive or aviation industry, you'd get your a$$ sued for millions or even billions of bucks until kingdom comes. Boeing's recent history should ring a bell here.
much paper-ish trees might help this tradeoff i think? i mean, you can watch turning-2D paper trees and grass in every route at TSC and they give enough satisfaction on me. does full 3D trees are required?
very ironry Rivet release a low quality DLC within deadline and the fan-made enhancement pack release 17 hours ago.
Could we please stay on topic, people? This discussion is about the deadlines businesses make, nothing else. You can discuss Fife circle related quality problems in all the other threads posted. As I said earlier, we have no official confirmation if Rivet really had a deadline to comply to, it's your assumption but this might not be the case. They only can say us so themselves but they don't and decided to keep their mouth closed which brings up even more confusion and anger. Don't give them even an argument for their release with some aspects in effortless quality. You don't even know if it was the case that they had one. No, that's no alternative for me personally. I had a closer look at the trees used in the DLCs (first and third party) and even on the 3D trees are significant differences noticable. Niddertalbahn even had trees with branches and leaves that move in the wind, as well as grass doing so. No question going back to 2D or 1D trees except for the very very far distance scenery.
Well, clearly DTG sets artificial deadlines for itself and its partners and releases routes ready-or-not. Think of NYT and MML, both of which required extensive repair post-release which was not completed in the case of NYT. Even Clinchfield was released with serious errors, with promises to fix them, a promise which was broken. So these contrived deadlines may suit DTG's business plan or timetable ( except in the case of CRR, which apparently sold poorly ), but they don't work for players who have to make a decision to buy or not based on incomplete routes and vague promises to revisit them at some unknown time in the distant future. Invariably, enough punters will hit the buy button to make it worthwhile for the developer to profit from this unfair practice of releasing products which are often not ready for prime time. This hasn't always been the case. Back in the " endless Summer " of 2022, the Rush Hour routes' deadlines were extended in a couple of instances, as was, if I recall correctly, the initial launch of CSX Heavy Haul.
It all boils down to money: both expected revenue from a given date based on release target, and project bugeting which involves allocating X devs putting in Y hours. Out of all of this the accountants come up with an anticipated revenue stream for the project. Obviously, that number has to be bigger than the cost estimate, until it's amortized out over three years. I do think though that the curve can be shifted rightward- in other words, increasing the time and personnel budget increases the cost side, but at the same time a better quality route will increase the revenue side. Both, of course, within reason. Still, as a SWAG I would say investing a bit more would generate more profit. Naturally I don't have any access to the numbers; and I acknowledge that user commentary may not map very well to sales (i.e. forum posts and Steam reviews may not reflect the actual ka-ching from the silent majority of users). Blackpool has been universally lauded, but for all we know, in the big picture BR blue still doesn't sell. Nonetheless, I have a notion that a route as polished as Goblin will generate more paper with HM picture on it, both raw sales numbers and the all-important percentage of those sales at full price, than one as undercooked as Maintalbahn. Or, more pointedly, steam traction has apparently been dropped because of poor sales of SoS and Peak Forest-- but would that have been the case had those routes been good?
